Born again... and again and again: Reincarnation in Christianity | |
19.47 (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | it is not reincarnation. it is called resurrection. and a person will come back as who they were with their memories during Christ´s thousand year reign to learn the truth of the Bible that they may or may not have learned in their lifetime. They will accept or not. If they don´t accept they will go back to ashes and unconsciousness with no hope of an resurrection. it is called the second death in the Bible. Jesus performed resurrections to show what he is going to do on a permanent basis during his reign as king. |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Fathom (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Good article, but it lost me when it came to the occultist Blavatsky and her insipid balderdash which heavily inspired Freemasonry and even Hitler. I don´t think the term "born again" necessarily pertains to reincarnation, it is a more of a change of heart or regeneration of within "from above" then a literal repititious cycle of rebirth in this frequency level. |
O-Ren (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anomalous Howard (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Buddha, I´d bet you like this song.. A National Acrobat I am the world that hides The universal secret of all time Destruction of the empty spaces Is my one and only crime I´ve lived a thousand times I found out what it means to be believed The thoughts and images The unborn child that never was conceived When little worlds collide I´m trapped inside my embryonic cell And flashing memories Are cast into the never ending well The name that scorns the face The child that never sees the cause of man The deathly darkness that Belies the fate of those who never ran Well I know its hard for you To know the reason why And I know you´ll understand More when it´s time to die Don´t believe the life you have Will be the only one You have to let your body sleep To let your soul live on I want you to listen I´m trying to get through Love has given life to you And now it´s your concern Unseen eyes of inner life Will make your soul return Still I look but not to touch The seeds of life are sown Curtain of the future falls The secret stays unknown Just remember love is life And hate is living death Treat your life for what it´s worth And live for every breath Looking back I´ve lived and learned But now I´m wondering Here I wait and only guess What this next life will bring |
Eat a Bullet (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: yeah you die once. then you get your life review (judgement) and then you do it all over again. anyhow. those are paul´s words in hebrews. paul´s a moron. |
Pamelot (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. (2) And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (3) Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I never could figure out how the disciples could even be asking such a silly question, as if there were a possibility that an pre-born infant´s sin could have resulted in his being born blind. Once I learned that reincarnation is real, it makes sense. |
nolo (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anomalous Howard (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
19.47 (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | O-Ren, ´I see you sporting this line on every thread you go to 1947, is this REALLY all you got?´ I (as much as any human can) try to stay with the truth and if it sounds like a record stuck in a groove to you, then so be it. ac 1:37 Quote your sources...if you can. |
autoimmune (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hi, Buddha. You know my feelings about articles based on faulty research, so . . . >>In the 6th century, in the year 553 A. D., the 2nd Council of Constantinople officially declared reincarnation a heresy and the doctrine of reincarnation was officially banished by the Christian Church.<< This fallacy began with Shirley MacLaine’s book _Out on a Limb_ (pp 234-35). Problem is, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553 :) The two ecumenical councils of Nicaea took place in 325 and 787 AD, and neither of them dealt with reincarnation. The council she may be referring to is the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 553, but, again, the subject of reincarnation was not addressed at this meeting either. None of the early councils did. The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was in condemning Origen’s idea of the pre-existence of souls before birth (one body, one soul that exists before creation of the body), which is not the same as reincarnation (one soul transmigrating through many bodies). [1] In fact, a great deal of Origen’s work is AGAINST reincarnation, including the text taken out of context from _Against Celsius_ that reincarnationists use to say he favored the idea: “Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?” Problem here is that most arguing the case you make leave out the qualifying statement in parenthesis where Origen identifies that he is arguing on the basis of Celsus´s beliefs, not his own [2]. >>During the same Early Christian Era leading up to the Council of Constantinople, notable Church fathers like Origen, Clement of Alexander and St. Jerome accepted and believed in the reincarnation principle.<< The article offers no proof of these claims—because there is no foundation in fact for the idea, even though it is passed along in “new Age” circles as “gospel truth.” These Church Fathers ALL spoke AGAINST reincarnation. I can quote their original works if you like, and will do so in another post if requested, but it would be long. But, trust me, they all came out against the very thing people now try to say they believe. The simple truth is that Resurrection is the antithesis of reincarnation and THAT is the reason texts promoting the eastern philosophical ideas were never considered to be part of Scripture. It wasn’t an elimination of what Christians held true, but a refusal to incorporate anything into Scripture that did not match what the believing Church held true already. The fact that millions of Christians went to their martyrdom during the first four centuries based on their belief that they would be resurrected—soul AND body—is all the proof one ever need offer to counter the specious claims that the early church believed in reincarnation. I´ve included references to the sites I used in compiling this reply. More detailed info can be found at there: [1] [link to www.catholic.com] [2] [link to www.issuesetc.org] REINCARNATION- Did The Church Suppress It? by Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger pax, --autoimmune |
Seneca (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
idol harobed (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Seneca (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Idol, Let me first preface this statement by saying I am using only the same standard as you and Duncan, et al., make use of in debunking multiple woo-woo theories, and in reference to the same scientific community to which you often refer, however wrong I think said scientific community may be on other issues, and despite the fact that autoimmune and I are up to this point only arguing against reincarnation purely on a historical and theological viewpoint. It seems ironic to me that on this issue you are playing the woo-woo, and I am the debunker. In other words, the scientific community to which you pay homage would be on my side on the issue of reincarnation, and against you. |
autoimmune (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Idol, no church can "control" a person to the point of accepting martyrdom, imo. Only the deepest trust that the body will rise again allows one to give up this body. How else can we explain millions over 4 centuries overcoming the natural instinct for self-preservation? The church didn´t have to cloud over anything. The people themselves believed in--no, trusted resurrection. They gave up their bodies because they knew they would recieve them back again in a glorified form that could then never again die. Quite a bit different than their consciousness continuing in different bodies through many lifetimes, which is a little harder to die for, imo . . . compared to resurrection, which rests on the belief that the human person is a UNIQUE, one-time only combination of mind, soul AND body . . . and ALL components of that person, including the body that is uniquely theirs, will live forever. ----- Hi, Seneca. Thanks for the flower. What a pleasant Sunday present! pax, --autoimmune |
Black (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | i got a quick answer that will ensure you can find out if reincarnation is real or not. go walk in front of a bus. j/k you will find out soon enough what the answer is. and these debates will be put to rest. me, i don´t know for sure, nor do i really worry about it. but having read enough NDE experiences and whatnot. i´d say there is a pretty good chance reincarnation is real to some extent. when i was in the womb i didn´t worry about this life. i just did my thing. if this life is like another womb. why should i worry about what college i´m going to in the next life? just be being is all there is. Bog will sort the details out. whoever whatever whenever wherever it/she/he/ |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
mystery (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Ultimate Truth however is that all existance is happening at once in a non linear fashion. Glimpses of those other realties are starting to bleed through for me at his time. Have you not noticed this? |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | John 9:1-3 reads: “Now as he was passing along he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him: ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered: ‘Neither this man sinned nor his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be made manifest in his case.’” Can these verses be rightly used to indicate either prehuman existence or predestination? Mormons make use of this text in an endeavor to prove prehuman existence, saying that the mere asking of the question by Christ’s disciples shows that they believed it possible for the man to have sinned before birth, in order for him to be punished for those sins by being born blind. These disciples had not been following Jesus very long, and doubtless they had not been completely cleansed of all false religious doctrine by the waters of truth. In this instance, their question undoubtedly reflected their contamination by the pagan teaching of the transmigration of souls, with its view that sins in previous lives determined the kind or condition of the bodies of future reincarnations of a transmigrating, immortal soul. This pagan teaching of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras could very easily have contaminated these Jewish disciples of Jesus, for a resemblance of it was taught by the Jewish Pharisees. On this point Josephus says: “They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.” Also, “They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.”—Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chapter I, ¶3; Wars of the Jews, Book II, chapter VIII, ¶14. The premise of the question, that the man might have been able to sin before his birth, is unscriptural. The Bible rules out any possible sinning before birth when it says concerning Esau and Jacob: “When they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile.” (Rom. 9:11) Jesus corroborated this view in his reply, saying the man had not sinned in any way before birth. For that matter, Jesus also showed that the parents had not sinned in the sense of doing anything wrong that resulted in their babe’s being born blind. All physical imperfections, and certainly blindness from birth is one such, are due to inherited condemnation because of Adamic sin. Imperfect creatures could produce only imperfect offspring. (Ps. 51:5; Matt. 7:16-20; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22) Not all calamities befall persons because of some sin they have committed. (Eccl. 9:11; Luke 13:1-5) Yet the Jews of Jesus’ day often thought so. Job was a special target of Satan, but his critics contended his troubles were not due to his integrity but traceable to his sins: “Recall now—who ever perished that was innocent? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow guilt and sow sorrow reap it.”—Job 1:8-12; 2:3-9; 4:7, 8. There are some who believe in predestination that use this text to argue that the man’s blindness was ordained by God, in order that through it he would come in contact with Jesus, learn of him, follow him, and thus be brought to the salvation predestined for him before the foundation of the world. They argue thus in view of Jesus’ reply: “It was in order that the works of God might be made manifest in his case.” By these words Jesus was not meaning to set aside or make void the scriptures cited in the previous paragraph that show the cause of such imperfections to be inherited sin from the time of Adam. This case of blindness due to imperfection served as an opportunity to make manifest the works of God, make them manifest to those observing the miraculous cure and also to the man cured. It caused him to become a follower of Christ. (John 9:38) Yet so far as making manifest the works of God, this case was no different from others where the blind saw, the lame walked, the lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard and the dead were raised. All such cases made manifest the works of God, fulfilled prophecy, and were signs that confirmed Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. (Isa. 53:4; Matt. 8:16, 17; 11:2-6) But what real praise would it be to God to make a man blind so that he could heal him later on? Rather than praiseworthy, that would be only the long-delayed righting of a wrong previously committed. It would be as hypocritical as one who sets up a straw man and then in a vain display knocks it down. No, Almighty God, whose work is perfect, would not intervene to make anything as imperfect as a blind babe.—Deut. 32:4. Even if he did, it would not be a case of predestination, as that doctrine is defined by its foremost proponents, the Presbyterians. Whether the man could see or not is immaterial to predestination. Predestination strictly relates to final destiny, not to any events or conditions during earthly life. Nor will it do to say the blindness was predestinated in order to bring the man in contact with Jesus, that he might be healed by him and thereafter learn about Christ and follow him and ultimately gain salvation. It cannot be said that the blindness was the means of setting in motion the chain of events that would lead the man to his predestined salvation. This would imply that God foreknew the chain of events and set the stage for its occurrence by ordaining the man’s birth as a blind babe, all to the end of making the divine predestination work out correctly. But such a view of matters does not mesh with the definition of the doctrine, for its supporters are definite in their contention that the predestination is completely independent of any foreknown or prearranged works or circumstances or conditions or moving causes. So the blindness could not be a condition or cause moving the man toward his destiny, as they say it comes “without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto”.—“Confession of Faith,” chapter III, section 5, as found on page 16 of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Hence John 9:1-3 cannot be successfully used to prove either prehuman existence or predestination. |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Does the Bible’s teaching about the soul and death allow for reincarnation? Genesis 2:7 states: “ God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” Notice that the man himself was the soul; the soul was not immaterial, separate and distinct from the body. “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezek. 18:4, 20) And a deceased person is referred to as a “dead soul.” (Num. 6:6) At death, “his spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (Ps. 146:4) So when someone dies, the complete person is dead; there is nothing that remains alive and that could pass into another body. Eccl. 3:19: “There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies.” (As in the case of humans, nothing survives at the death of an animal. There is nothing that can experience rebirth in another body.) Eccl. 9:10: “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.” (It is not into another body but into Sheol, the common grave of mankind, that the dead go.) |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How much of a difference is there between reincarnation and the hope held out in the Bible? Reincarnation: According to this belief, when a person dies, the soul, the “real self,” passes on to a better existence if the individual has lived a good and proper life, but possibly to existence as an animal if his record has been more bad than good. Each rebirth, it is believed, brings the individual back into this same system of things, where he will face further suffering and eventual death. The cycles of rebirth are viewed as virtually endless. Is such a future really what awaits you? Some believe that the only way of escape is by extinguishing all desire for things pleasing to the senses. To what do they escape? To what some describe as unconscious life. Bible: According to the Bible, the soul is the complete person. Even though a person may have done bad things in the past, if he repents and changes his ways, God will forgive him. (Ps. 103:12, 13) When a person dies, nothing survives. Death is like a deep, dreamless sleep. There will be a resurrection of the dead. This is not a reincarnation but a bringing back to life of the same personality. (Acts 24:15) For most people, the resurrection will be to life on earth. It will take place after God brings the present wicked system to its end. Sickness, suffering, even the necessity to die, will become things of the past. (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 21:3, 4) |
autoimmune (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | go walk in front of a bus. j/k<< LOL! Got to admit, Black, you and I think alike. No one can know with certainty until we die and few of us want to hurry the process :) Still, this was the very thing I tried to point out to Idol. Millions of early Christians DID walk in front of that bus because they believed so strongly they would rise again bodily. They could have sprinkled incense to Caesar, denied their Christianity (there were losts of _lapsi_ by the 4th century, as a matter of fact, those who did exactly that), and somehow avoided their own deaths. As Tertullian said, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity." Wasn´t words written in books or clerics seeking to subvert opposing views that made the early church grow so amazingly . . . none of that would have convinced the Roman/Greek world to convert . . . but the fact that so many seemed impervious even to death--and, even more importantly, forgave the people who killed them. Not sure how many of us today would die for either belief, so you make an excellent point that can be used on both sides of the discussion. pax, --autoimmune |
O-Ren (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
trista (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
buddha bloke (OP) 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | wow.. you jive turkeys are so fly keep on rappin.. ill be back later to read an chat.. AUTO:) yay :flower:(just the person i was lookin for, heheh).. LOL black.. fathom.. we have much to discuss;) .....LOL willie .. and to all the rest.. keep up the good work:).. ciao :ratdance: |
Anonymous Coward 12/08/2005 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |